EASTBOURNE AFFAIRS

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 223, 20 June 1925, Page 4

EASTBOURNE AFFAIRS

BUS COMPETITION WITH FERRY SERVICE STATEMENT BY MAYOR The monthly meeting of the Eastbourne Borough Council was hold last night. There were present the Mayor (Mr. H. M. Jones), and Councillors H. J. Levy, S. Ediison, S. 11. Jenkinson, —Holmes, 11. Black, C. 11. Andrews, and J. F. Laing. Tho Town Clerk and general manager reported that the coupons .and debentures in connection with th? Jill,ooo loan required the Mayor (Mr. H. M. Jones) and himself to sign their names 1890 times each. Included in the issue of debentures amounting to .£8750 17s. 7<L authorised bv the Controller and AuditorGeneral. in connection with the .loan was £lOO9 for foreshore protection. It was reported that building permits had been issued for the month to the value of 4)1185. The Finance and Stores Purchase Committee's report, which was adopted, contained a recommendation to the. council to take steps for a re-valuation of the borough, to be ready by Apr'-l 1, 1926. Rates amounting to £386 11s. 6d. were still outstanding at May 31, 1925. The Ferry Boats. The senior master (Captain Bullock) reported that slight damage had been done to the starboard belting of the Cobar and to the forward rail of the Duchess during the month, but no blame was attachable to anyone. Ho gave it as his opinion that the mast of the Muritai should be lifted out and restepped abaft tho wheelhouse. This mast, being on the forepart and close up to the windows, was an absolute danger to the safe navigation of the vessel, and a positive obstruction when berthing. This opinion, lie continued, had been expressed by every master who had been on tho vessel, and as the cost of shifting the mast would be small, he considered it should be done before the vessel was recommissioned. Mr. Ryan estimated the cost at •£l5. . The superintendent engineer reported ■ that no serious belting . repairs were necessary for either the Cobar or the Duchess. This item, usually expensive during the winter, was stated to be remarkably light for the past few months. The engines and boilers were working 'satisfactorily. Work on the Muritai was progressing favourably. The engines and boilers had been surveyed, and were being adjusted and reassembled. The interior nnd bilges were being cleaned and painted. Steering gear and deck equipment had been examined, and'some of the buoyant gear was undergoing a test. Rust cleaning and paint work about the main deck was well on. Matters requiring attention at Day’s Bay and Rqna Bay wharves for the greater protection of the ships were dealt with. Traffic Returns. The traffic returns showed that during the month of May 49,551 passengers had boon carried in the ferry service, as against 52,353 for the corresponding month of last year. To this number must be added 696 passengers carried for the special trip in connection with Mr. Massey’s funeral. The ferry receipts for May, 1925, were £1250 14s. 5d., while for the corresponding month of 1924 they were £1297 3s. 9d. The expenditure was £1443 9s. and £1763 Bs. Bd. respectipeJy. Bus v. Ferry. The Mayor outlined the negotiations with the proprietors of the Eastbourne Bus Service (Messrs. Sievers and Bosher), immediately prior to their entering into open competition with the ferry service. He said that he did so because certain inaccurate statements and misunderstandings were in circulation. Shortly before the expiration of the term of the last council, Messrs. Sievers and Bosher made an application to bo exempted from the heavy traffic tax. That failing, they asked the council for an increase in the council’s subsidy of £6B. Tho council referred tho question, quite rightly in his opinion, to the present council. He personally considered that an increase in the subsidy should be granted' and made the necessary arrangements for the bus proprietors to submit their case to the council at ono of its meetings. Despite repeated assurances Mr. Bosher failed to attend any of the meetings, although the council was quite prepared to study Ins convenience in the matter of time.’ On May 25, tho firm were informed that the council was sympathetic in regard to the subsidy question,’ but that no finality could be arrived at owing to the want of detailed particulars which should have been placed before th? council personally. As a matter of fact, continued Mr. Jones, the reason why they did not attend the meetings as. arranged, was because tliey had already made arrange-, ments to put buses on the roads; this, despite the fact that he had definitely told them that one condition governing any increase in subsidy was that they should not enter into competition with the council by road to Wellington. Surely, that was a reasonable precaution if the council was to give them a subsidy of something like £l5O per annum. Neither Mr. Boshor nor Mr. Sievers made any inquiry as to th? council's attitude towards their application, and before the counci's letter readied them they had advertised the ■ Muritai-Wellington time-table.

Continuing, Mr. Jones said that ho then intervi?wed Messrs. Sievers and Bosher concerning the contract with tho council in the matter, of taking passengers to and from tho boats. That contract, they said, would be honoured, and they were prepared to give an undertaking to that effect in writing. This, ho alleged, they had fai ed to do, and on several occasions they had caused grave inconvenience and hardship to a number of passengers. On Juno 9, they were again written to anil asked what they intended doing in connection with maintaining the service in Eastbourne itself. They were warned also that unless a satisfactory service was maintained, the council would hav? to review the position. Since then three boats had been missed altogether, and no reply has been received to the letter. "I have endeavoured to meet this firm as fairly and honourably as possible.” concluded Mr. Jones, “but I regret to state they have not so played the game during the present negotiations. Summed up. the position is that the biis proprietors believed that the road traffic wag worth more to them than any subsidy they could get, and they naturally hope to g-t the sympathetic ami practical support of Eastbourne res'dents. I would point out, however, that the Eastbourne people own the boats, ami in their own interests they should at all times look at it from that point of view. Any profits from the boats are theirs; likewise any losses, and these have to be met.”